Racism

In the first episode of Mindhunter, the Netflix show about how the FBI serial killer program began, an interesting proposition was presented. The gist is that prior to the 1970s, crime had motive. In the contemporary era, however, motive was no longer a factor. Serial killers may have a modus operandi, and even a purpose, but they essentially kill indiscriminately. Random people become targets. Of course, this is a fictional story, but does that make the point any less relevant?

We may understand a killer has a motive, such as creating fear or terror, but there is no motive for target selection. Consider the most recent case of the Las Vegas shooting. As of this writing, a full month has passed and no one knows what motivated Stephen Paddock to shoot 500 people. Many terror attacks are on large groups of people, but none involve a personal motive.

Gone are the days of organized crime when gangsters wanted to “send a message” by killing a rival or snitch. No longer must a woman die because she was cheating on her husband. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is as dangerous as infidelity in today’s world. When did this change?

I will once again point my finger at what I have termed “the Satanic Era” of the 1960s. Prior to the 1960s, the majority of mass killings were familicide. Since the 1960s, mass killings have been in public places against innocent bystanders. The deadliest decade prior to 1960 was the 30s, with 9 mass shootings. The 1960s had 6, the 70s had 13, there were 32 in the 1980s, and over 40 in the 1990s. The number since then as only increased.

Again, low numbers of mass shootings which primarily were targeted at family members prior to the 60s. Much higher frequency of shootings with a major increase in bystander fatalities since the 1960s.

How about serial killers, the focus of Mindhunter? According to one site, there were only a dozen or so serial killers in the United States in the decades leading up to the 1960s. There were 19 in the 1960s, 119 in the 70s, 200 in the 80s, and 141 in the 1990s. The number has since dropped to 60 or less in the twenty-first century, but the line drawn through the Satanic Era is still worth noting.

It does appear that this notion of random killing has increased since the 1960s.

17,000 women were forcibly raped in 1960. By the end of the decade, the number of victims had more than doubled. By 1992, the number peaked at over 109,000.

Recreational drug and alcohol use, though prevalent regardless of drug laws, has exploded since the 1960s.

Increases in violence against strangers, depictions of violence and sex in film and television, sexual assault, drug use, alcoholism, the opioid crisis, teen pregnancies, deviant sexual behaviors, homosexuality, transgenderism, mass murder, and serial killings are directly correlated with the decline in major religion and distrust of major media and government institutions.

In every single one of these categories – religious decline (secularization), increases in crime and deviance, the birth of new religious movements and serial killers – you can draw a line before and after the Satanic Era of the 1960s and see that there has been a seismic social shift in the United States.

One cannot help but notice that many of the same issues of the 1960s are manifest today. Civil unrest, shouts of racism, segregation, unending protest, free love, excessive drug use, sensitivity toward anything deemed “offensive”, attacks on free speech and the Constitution, militarized police, political corruption, calls for revolution, Marxism, and the list goes on and on.

I am a child of the 80s, but I would love to hear from those who were alive during the 60s. Does your lived experience mirror my theory? Has the shift been noticeable? Do you think there has actually been a shift? Please, I want to hear from you.

Ethnocentrism has existed since Cain killed Abel and was cursed by God. The children of Noah, the three main representatives of the original ethnicities, were also cursed and blessed accordingly. Their offspring have been at war with one another since Ham sodomized his drunken father. In Genesis 43:32 we see this trend continuing.

The Egyptians (Hamites) thought it was an “abomination” to break bread with the Hebrews (Semites). Likewise, the Egyptians thought it an “abomination” to be a shepherd (Genesis 46: 34). Who are the shepherds according to the Law of First Mention? Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, brothers of Joseph, Moses, David, and Jesus Christ. The fathers of the Hebrew people and Judeo-Christian religions are “abominations” to the Hamites who would later become Muslims.

Judeo-Christianity is an abomination in Egypt and has been for four millennia. Perhaps God knew this truth when he said “Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth.” (Jeremiah 44:26).

Fast forward about 3900 years. Egypt in 2017 is a large Muslim nation who maintains a politically motivated “cold peace” with Israel, while most of the Egyptian citizens remain Anti-Semitic (Hitler’s Mein Kampf is a bestseller).

Anyone who believes that an American president or the United Nations could ever possibly have a hope of bringing true peace to the Middle East is living in fantasy land. This conflict predates Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This is an ethnic battle that transcends religious differences.

The Bible does tell us that one man will bring about a temporary peace on Earth. For 3.5 years, a powerful leader will halt global conflict, including that between the Jews, Muslims, and “Christians” (using “scare quotes” because true Christians will be raptured before this). The remaining 3.5 years of the tribulation will be a horrific event that makes the most violent horror films look like G-Rated Disney flicks.

Until the Antichrist shows up, no resolution will end the desires of Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc. for exterminating the Jews and wiping Israel off the map. Ending Sykes-Picot (the agreement that ended the Ottoman Empire) will not bring peace. This is the first and longest ranging “racist” (not about skin color, mind you) battle in human history.

While Western society keeps trying to tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, that tolerance is possible, and that race, religion, culture, gender, etc. are all social constructions, the Bible tells us that God is author of history. It is by HIS design that these things occur.

The things that divide us by the color of our skin or what genitalia we have are united when we are saved and become one with Christ. His blood covers our race, gender, and ethnicity when we are welcomed into the Kingdom of God as children of the one true King.

We cannot socially construct peace. Only God can and will end this conflict forever. It will happen after the tribulation, when 2/3 of humanity perishes in terrifying earthquakes, famines, diseases, dehydration, boiling sunlight, and demonic creatures that torture those who refuse to accept Christ.

I, for one, prefer to be taken in the Rapture before the world falls apart. I want my friends, family, and colleagues who are unsaved to follow me on the road of salvation that leads to heaven through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Judah (the Messianic line) married a Canaanite woman (Hamitic) and had many sons. The firstborn, who married Tamar, was killed by God for being wicked. The second was killed by God for not being with Tamar. The Messianic line now passed through Pharez, the son of Judah and Tamar.

The messy Messianic line is full of terrible characters. Adam and Eve were the first sinners. Noah got drunk and ended up being sodomized by his own son. Jacob (Israel) was a compulsive liar. Now Israel’s son, Judah, ended up being seduced by his own daughter-in-law (Tamar) pretending to be a prostitute who gave birth to yet another set of twins. We already know that twins seem to be a bit of a problem, and later we will see that Rahab, another prostitute, will be interjected into the line of Christ.

Just when you think your family is jacked up, remember that Christ’s ancestors were drunks, liars, murderers, and prostitutes.

Joseph (the greatest “type” of Christ) gains power and influence in the house of Potiphar. In Genesis 39:5 we see that God will bless the house of unbelievers (Hamitic Egyptians in this case) so long as they treat God’s people well. Sodom could have been saved had they had enough righteous people. The United States right now is being preserved for the same reason. As modern Christians abandon God, we move closer to the removal of our blessing.

Genesis 40 contains more strong references to Jesus Christ in the life of Joseph. He was an innocent man (as Christ was) in prison with two prisoners (like Christ during the crucifixion). One of the prisoners died while the other was restored (on the cross, one cursed God while the other was saved). The baker, who died, was hung on a tree, just like at the crucifixion. The butler, who was restored, returned to his position after three days (the length of time Christ was in the grave).

The “element” in the butler’s dream was wine. The “element” in the baker’s dream was bread. These are the two elements of the last supper.

The probability of these similar events occurring again 1700 years later are infinitesimal. Prophecy at its finest!

Potiphar’s wife decides to seduce Joseph, but he resists. I think that the imagery of Genesis 39:12 is powerful. “And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.”

How often are we tempted, but stick around too long? Joseph IMMEDIATELY fled the area. He did not even take the time to take his clothes. I know I have been in dangerous situations before, and all it takes is a few extra seconds of staying in that environment to convince us to stay.

Next time you are at a bar and someone offers to buy you a drink, leave. When you are at work and someone who isn’t your spouse says something dirty, leave. When you see an image on social media that makes you lust a little bit, shut it down.

Think of all the things we take for granted in life.
The concepts of white privilege and patriarchy are that white males have certain historical advantages that they never actually think about. Things are becoming more egalitarian, for sure. However, Western civilization has been, for better or worse, a product of straight white men exploiting others.
Don’t believe me? When we identify colleagues or even friends, we often clarify the race of minorities, but not whites. You do not hear things like “famous male inventor Thomas Edison…” or “the straight, white Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Madison.” On the other hand, we do that for racial minorities, homosexuals, and women.

In other words, heterosexual and white are default categories. The all-encompassing term to describe all of humanity is “mankind.” Consider the term “straight,” which is the opposed of crooked, which has the negative connotation of deviance. These are taken for granted assumptions typically made by straight, white, men and are often challenged by those who violate one or more of those categories. The reaction from those in the majority is shock and denial of their privileges.

This happens when we take these concepts for granted, and Christians have been doing the same thing with doctrine. From everything from Bible translations to baptism, the modern American Christian has been fattened with privileges that go all-too-often ignored.

Our Christian Founding Fathers were persecuted and murdered for their Faith. The history of the Church is filled with meeting in secret locations under penalty of death from their governments, which still occurs in many countries. What do we, as Americans, do? We use our Christian colleges as an excuse to challenge and “correct” the Bible that our brothers and sisters and the Middle-East are being beheaded over. While we bicker about whether we should wear suits or have drums in a worship setting, Christians around the world are being crucified or burned alive.

We need not fear being used as gladiatorial fodder in the Colosseum of Rome, so we find minor things over which to quibble.

Almost 80% of Americans identify as Christian, but the average weekly church attendance for a believer in this country is 1.7 services per month. Attendance is not low because Uncle Sam is waiting to bust in our doors and imprison those inside, but because to 22% of American churchgoers, watching football has become a priority. Rather than being thrust into the arena to face lions, we can watch others combat live on television. We take our churches for granted, because we have churches to go to.

American Christians have taken church attendance for granted, but have also taken prayer and daily time in Scripture for granted. We can tell you anything you want about what our favorite actors are up to, but nothing about Solomon’s life. We can quote Tom Brady’s QB rating in the 2004 playoffs, but can’t quote a verse other than John 3:16. We have time to text, not call, but text our best friends with every detail of our daily lives, but spend no time having a conversation with our Heavenly Father.

I cannot tell you the number of fellow church members and Church members who gleefully post party pictures on social media with faces distorted by drunken frivolity; forgetting that we are called to be pictures of Christ to our unsaved friends and families. How can a drug addict be helped by someone who is right next to them shooting up? How might an alcoholic have a life change while we sit at the bar sharing shots? With no thought of the repercussions, we indulge in the very same behaviors as those who are lost. How will they ever be found when we throw the map in the garbage?

We do these things because we CAN do these things. We do them because we CHOOSE to do them. We put God’s will behind our own ambitions because we ignore the manifestation of His grace in our lives. We no longer count our blessings, because our insatiable thirst for humanistic pursuits has us spoiled and privileged.

No one is perfect. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. The difference is that the heroes of the Bible felt regret when they fell from grace. King David never fully recovered from his tryst with Bathsheba. Peter spent the rest of his life trying to make up for his denial of Christ before the crucifixion. Will we do the same, or will we continue to take our privilege for granted?

Check your privilege. It is there, and we must acknowledge its existence. The only way we will be effective at bringing others to Christ is if we throw away our hedonistic lifestyles and BE LIKE CHRIST. If you sin, it’s okay. Jesus’ blood covers Christians for all eternity. However, we must all try to avoid the temptation to flaunt our sin to everyone in our social networks.

Becoming a Christian is an easy decision for most privileged Americans. LIVING like a Christian is incredibly difficult. The first decision is personal, while the second affects the lives of all those around us. Remember who you represent. You are a child of the King of Kings. You are privileged, whether you want to admit it or not. Time is running out for our loved ones who have yet to accept Christ. Do them a favor and dare to be different. Be a rebel. We are already experiencing a revolution, so be revolutionary. Stop taking God for Granted.

The subject of “privilege” for straight, white, Christian males is once again rearing its ugly head. Whenever this topic arises, those who are accused of privilege insist that they are not, while those who are doing the accusing refuse to see their own culpability in the structural problems that face the downtrodden in our American society.

I am one who is accused of privilege, but I implore the reader to focus on the message rather than the messenger. I have tried to be objective, though I admit that I come into this issue with biases.

When you account for education, social class, gender, race, etc. the “gap” is incredibly small. A white boy who grew up in the same social class, went to the same school, and got the same grades as a black boy has an equal chance of social mobility.

Historically, whites have absolutely had a leg up. However, post 1965 Civil Rights America, the argument must change. All things are not equal in 2017 (a mere 50 years, mind you), and there are some inherent challenges that older (say, 25-40) blacks face that whites may not. However, there are fewer and fewer excuses for those who are college age now. This is where you’ll point to the “opportunities” and “systemic” issues, and that is where things get a bit more complex. The statistics are not promising.

Blacks are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods with bad schools, but whites who also live in those neighborhoods have about the same opportunity and often end up with the same level of social mobility.

Furthermore, if you want to talk total raw numbers, there are more whites in poverty, abusing illicit substances, on food stamps, living on the streets, and in prison than blacks. More white people are killed by police than blacks. The difference is that rates are higher for blacks.

That being said, the problem with statistical analysis (and this is coming from a statistician), is that numbers do not give you the “why”. Yes, rates of crime, poverty, etc. are worse for blacks, but why? Is it possible that these issues can be resolved by younger generations?

I would argue (and so would many researchers) that the biggest “privilege” that white people seem to have is in their family structure. This is not about skin pigmentation, but a deeper cultural problem.

Single parent households are the biggest predictor of juvenile delinquency and blacks are disproportionately raised in single parent homes. Over 60% of black families are single-parent. The next highest is white at around 25%. This is a staggering discrepancy.

If you want to know why there is inequality, it’s not some systemic social problem like access to education or jobs, its in the destruction of the African-American nuclear family. If you want to point to the incarceration of black males as a reason why there are so many single parent households, I would argue that it is this systemic issue in the black family that perpetuates this cycle.

There are many theories of deviance that point to most deviant behavior are learned by being passed down by peers and older family members. For instance, when an urban black male begins to academically outperform those around him, he is quickly shamed for it. He is called an “Uncle Tom” and is accused of “acting white” or “sucking up to the man.” Prominent sociologist Elijah Anderson said as much in his seminal work, Code of the Street (1999). This same phenomenon occurs in the corporate workplace as Anderson addresses in The Cosmopolitan Canopy (2011).

He writes of two black men who work for the same company.
One is ethnocentric and “plays the game” of white corporate America. He does enough to be respected for his work, but has not risen past middle management. His white co-workers offered to include him in social activities ranging from going to the bar to dinner at their homes. He always declined, and now they no longer invite him. He is bitter, distrusts white people, and is jealous of his more successful black co-workers.

The second man started in the company five years after the first. However, his full assimilation into the corporate culture allowed for a meteoric rise in the company which he now serves as Vice President. The other black people in the company think of him as a “sellout” or “Uncle Tom.”

This is reminiscent of the street. A very large portion of the urban African American population is ethnocentric. They outright refuse to assimilate into the larger culture. By their own design, they create counter-cultural music and use counter-cultural slang. To conform to “white” society—otherwise known as society—is to no longer remain black. Educated, articulate black men are now “white” in the eyes of the streets.

So there is a problem of assimilation. This is not about skin color, mind you. On the contrary. According to research, black immigrants from Jamaica and Africa have a high rate of assimilation to the broader American culture compared to some other groups. They learn English, they dress appropriately, and speak in a way that better represents the ideal American. Black immigrants detest the African American culture as being lazy and ignorant. These immigrants also find themselves in much better socioeconomic situations than blacks born in America (Foner 1997; Morawska 2014; Waters 1994). If American success was about skin color, these immigrants would be in the same situation as native blacks. They are not, because they understand the value of assimilation.

I believe that the research shows that if young blacks who are coming up right now would fully embrace assimilation into the larger American culture, and work harder to maintain their parental responsibilities and partnerships, their children would flourish.

And when it comes to the “patriarchy” or “male privilege”, binge drinking, alcoholism, substance abuse, suicide, being sexually assaulted as a child, and stress related diseases leading to death are all much higher in males.

Males are more likely to drop dead at a younger age from disease or suicide than females. This has always been a factor since Emile Durkheim’s study of suicide back in the late 1800s, and continues today.

And, of course, the gender pay gap myth has been thoroughly debunked over and over and over again by anyone with half a brain. Not to mention that the majority of college graduates are female, so in a few years that majority of the educated workforce will be female. You could show that most of the Fortune 500 companies are run by men, but those are old jobs that were held in a time when they may have been privilege, but for our generation and those going forward, the rise of female college education should put a pause on the argument of contemporary patriarchy.

Again, when you account for race, social class, gender, education, family unit, etc., the “privilege” gap vanishes.

Thus, this is not an issue of privilege. This is no longer the 1900s when there were certainly advantages to being born a straight, white, Christian male. Going forward, this argument will only become more and more archaic.

Learn more by checking out some of the resources I cited in this article:

Let’s pretend that there is an ideology that, if practiced according to its fundamental document, would encourage pedophilia, abuse of women, killing homosexuals, and murder of those who disagree with said ideology.

Let’s pretend that for 1500 years, those who follow their fundamental document have engaged in violent conquest leaving behind a trail of corpses and severed heads.

Let’s pretend that this ideology follows a book written by a man who married a six year old and only became more violent as he aged.

Let’s pretend now that the apostates who refuse to follow the violent, pedophilic, minority murdering book were now seen as the “fundamentalists” of the ideology, while those who continue the 1500 year traditions are called “radicals.”

Let’s pretend that the leaders of countries where these “radicals” have been waging a targeted war decide that there should be a safety measure in place to make sure that the locations where violent pedophiles generally form en masse have less access to their targets.

Let’s pretend that a group within a targeted nation is one that would be slaughtered by these “radicals” if they were in these dangerous locations, and these minorities who would be murdered now protest to fight for the very “radicals” who want to kill them to come over to where they are.

Does this make any sense?

Let’s pretend that there are 20 houses on my street. If one house in my neighborhood was full of people who wanted me dead, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t send out invitations for my cookout to them and their friends.

Let’s pretend that not only did I know that those in that house wanted me dead, but I knew that they had already killed some of my neighbors and even burned a house to the ground with a family inside.

I was talking to person of color yesterday about the lack of a major church led peace rally in response to the Black Lives Matter riots, and the conversation ended with me essentially being called a racist.

How did we get there?

This person, a self-professed Christian who happens to be biracial, seemed like a person who might want to have one of those “difficult discussions” or race that supposedly never happen. I said I wanted to see church leaders hold an MLK style march on Washington where hundreds of thousands of Christians could unite with a message promoting peaceful protests.

I was then informed that there are apparently 1500 peaceful protests that I don’t hear about. I responded that I have no problem with those protests, or those who are just regular folk who believe that too many black people are being killed by police. My problem is with those at the top who pour millions of dollars into the “movement” and bus professional agitators to a location seeking to set the city on fire.

I was told that I was uninformed because I did not know about the 1500 protests. An interesting indictment, because this person 1) was unaware of the millions of dollars given to BLM by George Soros and other big money donors; 2) was unaware that unions are busing in paid agitators; 3) has watched none of the shooting videos; 4) knows very few of the names of the victims.

As I provided the statistics about how only 200-250 blacks are killed by police each year. How 70-80 of those cases are justified. Maybe 10-15% are questionable, and the remaining 10-15% are absolutely unjustified. These statistics are all available from government sites (FBI, CDC, etc.). This person actually told me that those statistics cannot be trusted.

I was even told that my opinions are based on videos, not what actually happened. Although they admitted to not watching any videos, this person believed that perhaps the evidence that I saw with my own eyes was possibly falsified. I suppose my eyes are deceiving me.

In arguing about justified shootings, I informed them that if one of my little ginger daughters pulled a gun on the police, I would expect her to be shot as well. It is NOT a racial issue.

“Have you ever lost someone close to you?” I was asked. Thankfully, I have not. However, according to this person, losing someone is extremely emotional and I cannot expect someone in pain like that to behave rationally.

I told them that if someone walked into my house and killed my family, I would more than likely be filled with rage, but I would not set fire to my innocent neighbor’s house. I understand the outrage. I get that the community may be hurting. I know that they seek justice. I do not believe that burning down a local CVS is proper exercise of the outrage and pain.

This person challenged my Christianity. They asked how a Christian could be okay with black people being killed. I told them that I am not okay with it, but there is no reasonable way to stop all of these shootings. No matter what training is implemented; no matter how many cameras are on the person and vehicles of police officers, perpetrators will still pull illegal firearms out and aim it at officers, thus, justifying shooting in self-defense.

This person told me that they have to be scared for their spouse and children because they are black, and might be shot during a routine traffic stop. I told them that out of a population of 350 million people, fewer than 100 are killed by police for “no reason.”

I also have to teach my daughters to not mouth off and especially not pull out a weapon on a police officer. I told this person about being personally harassed by police several times in my life. I have been pulled over for no reason many times. I was sucker-punched by a black man during a basketball game and looked to the police for help as I was 17 at the time. The officer harassed me for 20 minutes, trying to get me to admit that I said the “n word,” which I did not. No witness said I did, but the officer could not believe that I was punched just for playing basketball despite a dozen or so eyewitnesses that backed up my story.

Having grown up as a pale, ginger boy in an all-black neighborhood, I got into fights. I was bullied and the victim of racism. I had to go to private school because it would have been worse for me had I gone to a public school.

This, apparently, is why I have “racism in my heart” now according to the person I was conversing with. I was a victim of racism, so now I must be racist. There is no evidence of this during my entire lifetime, yet I suppose I must be.

I mean, I also had some bad run-ins with white people. The only other white kids on my block broke into my house while we were at church and stole all of our video games and systems (and yes, there were many). In fact, I got into fistfights exclusively with white people in high school. Reflecting on this made me realize that I must also be racist toward white people. They were all men too, so I must now be a man-hating sexist. Makes sense, right?

No.

I was also told that my obvious outrage over being called a racist was more proof of my racism. The conversation ended when I asked if they had ever had a bad incident with a white person, and they simply said “not until now.”

“Wow.” I left the conversation with that one word response.

This is the never ending cycle of circular reasoning and straw man arguments that keeps people quiet about race in America today. Whenever the subject is broached, white people become racists. A conversation beginning with a call for unity and healing ended with charges of racism and personal attacks.

Unfortunately, I am too stubborn to run from the topic. I will still talk about race, and I will do so with some academic authority on the subject. I will do so with research, statistics, social theories, and actual data. I refuse to believe that one “must be black” to discuss black issues. With that logic, no blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Islanders, etc. should be able to discuss white issues, which, if you use the liberal academic talking points of the day, are all issues. The default of our society is white and male.

Women can talk about men. People of color can talk about whites. Yet the reverse is not allowed? Who is the racist? Who is ethnocentric now?

A “discussion” requires two people. If we are to solve any social problem, the “opposing” groups must engage in a dialogue. It is the basis for understanding one another. I look forward to being called “racist” more often, so long as I continue to press for conversations about tough issues. I can live with that, because I know that the Truth is on my side.